Pages

Last July, after Facebook and Twitter and You Tube banned radio host and performance artist Alex Jones from their platforms, I did a little digging, and found that his program and all his affiliate stations are breaking a longstanding Federal Communications Commission rule prohibiting hoaxes. And what Jones has been doing goes way beyond the original 1938 Halloween broadcast of War of the Worlds, which prompted passage of the rule in the first place.

.

The nationally syndicated radio host is currently
being sued in Connecticut and Texas by at least eight families who have faced
the unthinkable: losing their children in a school shooting. The Sandy Hook
school shooting. The school shooting Alex Jones broadcast never happened.

.

Court filings document the Alex Jones broadcast saying:
“Children did not die, teachers did not die on December 14, 2012.”“How do you even convince the public
something's a total hoax?... The general public doesn't … know they had the
kids going in circles in and out of the building as a photo-op” “… Sandy Hook
is a synthetic completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured.” Referring
to video of the parents of children killed in the shooting, Jones stated that
"they ... bring in actors to break down and cry.”

.

Once Jones planted that seed, people began to attack the real grieving parents of
small children. Among them, the parents of slain six year old Noah Pozner
received death threats, had to relocate seven times, and now live too far to even
visit their son’s gravesite. “Sometimes
I lie awake at night worrying that despite our efforts at security, a
determined conspiracy fanatic might gain entry to our home,” said Noah’s
mother, in reports of her court declaration. Declared her husband, “Due to Mr.
Jones’ broadcast, I have also suffered severe emotional distress and trauma
which I cannot even begin to adequately describe. No human being should ever be
asked to suffer through the torment Mr. Jones carried out.”

"The station may be in violation if: (1) the licensee knows this information is
false; (2) it is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause
substantial public harm; and (3) broadcast of the information does in fact
directly cause substantial public harm."

(1) Did his affiliate stations know that what Jones' said about the Sandy Hook school shooting being faked was false? Of course. (2) Did they know those lies could cause substantial public harm? Yes, because he had caused substantial harm before with his hoaxes. After Jones falsely broadcast in 2016 that Hillary Clinton was running a child-sex ring out of a Washington, D.C. pizza place, one
of his listeners went out and shot the place up with an assault rifle. (3) Did the false information Jones broadcast about Sandy Hook directly cause substantial public harm? Indeed it did.

.

But
the FCC says there is a simple way for stations to air hoaxes without violating
the public trust:

“If a station airs a disclaimer before the
broadcast that clearly characterizes the program as fiction … the
program is presumed not to pose foreseeable public harm.”

To help right this wrong, the Media Action Center has launched a letter writing action to request that the FCC enforce its rule about hoaxes on Alex Jones' radio program. Despite what Infowars is saying about this action in recent days, this is not an effort to silence Jones, but the remind the affiliate stations of their legal duty to protect the public interest.

What would happen if the politician you love to hate were indicted,
but your local news didn’t report it? No newspaper stories, no TV news,
no radio news on the hour, nothing.
.
Couldn’t happen? Think again.
.
The Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission will vote Nov. 16 to
allow just one corporation to own the local newspaper plus nearly every
commercial TV station in your town. Nifty way to reduce down to just
one newsroom then dictate whatever information that corporation does –
and does not – want you to know in this democracy.
.
It’s exactly what’s happened with radio. Back in the day when lots of
companies owned 40 radio stations, the broadcast industry made big
promises that local information would be much more diverse if they could
simply own many more stations. The 1996 Telecommunications Act resulted
in a handful of corporations owning thousands of stations – and force
feeding conservative programming down our country’s throats ever since,
no debate, no opposing opinions allowed.
. The Media Action Center showed
during the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin that “conservative” radio
giants there gave millions of dollars in free airtime to the GOP
candidate – while refusing to allow a single Democrat on the air at all.
GOP operatives there still gloat about radio winning elections for
them. After 21 years of this kind of divisive public policy, 60 million
people listen to conservative radio... about the same number that voted
for Donald Trump.
.

Over the weekend, Dan Morain, editorial page editor at Sacramento Bee, wrote an article about what I've been working on, and writing about here at The BRAD BLOG and elsewhere, for many years now.
. Morain's article starts this way:
.

From her home outside the no-stoplight settlement of
Fiddletown, Sue Wilson tilted at a corporate windmill, and a funny thing
happened.

.
Sue from Fiddletown won, on our behalf. You can hear the sound of
that victory at the end of the FM radio dial in Sacramento. Where there
once was commercial pop music, hooting deejays and stupid radio stunts, there’s static.
.
"We the People own the air waves," she said, and repeats: "We the People."

It's a very nice article, that begins with a tragic story. That
story, however, now has at least a somewhat encouraging ending for, yes,
We the People.
.
Here's what happened...

Ten years ago, a Sacramento mother of three died at the hands of an
out of control radio station seeking to boost ratings and profits. Her
family's attorney, Roger Dreyer, wrote to the Federal Communications
Commission asking that the broadcast license of Entercom Sacramento's
KDND 107.9 "The End", be revoked due to their tragic stunt, a live, on air, "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest.
.
In 2009, upon winning a civil trial and a $16 million award against the station, Dreyer dropped that request.
.
As a former broadcaster turned Public Interest advocate, I believed
the FCC, which hasn't actually revoked a broadcasters' license in
anyone's memory, needed to make a statement to the radio industry.
Because the airwaves belong to the public, and since radio spectrums are
so scarce (there are only so many frequencies in any one geographic
area, therefore competition is extremely limited), broadcasters make a
deal with We the People: they may operate only if they "serve the public
interest."
.
Having covered the trial,
I learned that KDND lured listeners into a contest the station knew was
deadly, then obfuscated that threat, then made fun of contestants as
they became violently ill, then abandoned Jennifer Strange after she
cried for help. Then, upon learning Mrs. Strange had died, chose to call
attorneys rather than other contestants who may have needed medical
attention.
Was that "serving the public interest"? Clearly not. The DMV takes
drivers' licenses for reckless driving; if ever there was a case for
denying a broadcaster's license, this was it. Otherwise, why have
licensing or a process for revoking it at all?

You’re enjoying your weekend java, wanting to learn what
happened at last week’s school board meeting. Your local newspaper
doesn’t cover that beat, but a local blogger does a good job, so you try
to pull his site up on your laptop. Meanwhile, your 5-year-old opens up
“Sesame Street” on her iPad, and on his, your teenage son is bringing
up “Spider-Man” on Netflix. You instantly hear the sounds of
“Spider-Man,” but your daughter is getting impatient, as her show hasn’t
yet appeared. In another minute, the “Sesame Street” theme song finally
plays, but your school board blog still isn’t up. You get another cup
of coffee and wait. And wait. And wait. Finally, the site fills your
screen.
.
This is what the Internet will look like if the
Federal Communications Commission does not pass strict “Net neutrality”
rules. While opponents have painted Net neutrality as government
takeover of the Internet, it is actually meant to prevent a corporate
takeover of free speech on the Web. Net neutrality means keeping the
Internet as it has been since its inception, with users paying their
Internet service provider a fee to access the Internet, and then freely
choosing what to watch, hear, read or post – with no outside
interference. Proponents include Google, Microsoft, AOL, Mozilla, eBay
and thousands of small businesses. There is very little opposition to
Net neutrality – except from the giant Internet service providers
themselves.
.
Verizon, ATT, Comcast and Time Warner Cable
are among the chief opponents of the current model. They are now the
largest Internet service providers and have devised a more profitable
model (for themselves) called “paid prioritization.” They want to charge
higher fees to content providers (writers, moviemakers, application
developers) who have the means to pay. Those providers who cannot pay
more will suffer slower speeds.

Congratulations to Devil's Advocate for getting on the air in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin to counter the right-wing "alternate facts" out out on our
publicly owned airwaves every day! Now El Dorado Hills, CA has an
opportunity to get it's own low power FM station. Going back into the
archives, here is why it is important:

.

FEDERAL RULES GIVE CORPORATION BACKED CONSERVATIVE RADIO ALL THE LOCAL VOICES

.

originally published by the Sacramento Bee, May 11, 2008

.
There's a mournful hush in Sacramento these days, the empty sound of an
entire political viewpoint quieted. More than 32,000 weekly listeners
who once tuned to KSAC (1240 AM) to hear partisan Democrats beat up on
President George W. Bush, now hear only Christian hip-hop.
.
There's
nothing wrong with Christian hip-hop; it's a great outlet for artists
breaking out of the gangsta rap mold. But there are six other commercial
radio stations licensed in the Sacramento area programming the
Christian message. In the political realm, three local radio stations
program 264 hours of partisan Republican radio talkers beating up on
Democrats every week. Now, zero stations program any Democratic view
whatsoever: 264-0.
.
This follows the national trend
revealed in the 2007 Free Press and Center for American Progress study,
"The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio." Nationally, 90
percent of commercial talk radio is conservative; only 10 percent is
liberal. (This study does not include Public Radio, which by statute is
required to provide differing points of view. One is as likely to hear a
Republican's views as a Democrat's. And NPR hosts don't beat up on
anybody.)
.
KSAC shared another characteristic with
other liberal radio stations: It had a tiny, 1,000-watt transmitter.
Tough for a little station that barely reached Sacramento's suburbs to
compete with 50,000 watt giant KFBK, whose signal stretches from Chico
to Modesto, from Reno to that little town of San Francisco. Despite KFBK
reaching millions more potential listeners, KSAC mustered an audience
nearly 20 percent that of KFBK's. (Its ratings were double local
conservative station KTKZ, which has a 5,000-watt transmitter.) And
Arbitron showed the progressive station's audience was steadily growing.
KSAC was the little station that could.
.
Until it couldn't.

I’m a fan of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” but Friday night, for the umpteenth time, I wanted to reach right through the TV screen and shake somebody.

.

How the media is destroying our country is one of Bill Maher’s
favorite topics, and he’s right about it. But this time, it wasn’t just
Maher deriding the collapse of facts, it was everybody on the show:
funny man Martin Short, liberal Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Neo-conservative
writer David Frum, and even President Barack Obama: “How do we create a
common space where truth gets eyeballs… and we can create a common
conversation?” Yet not one of them had any clue about how we got to this
point or what to do next.
.
AAAUUUGGGHHHH! (beating head against wall…)
.

For twenty years I have been sounding the alarm that our very
democracy is at stake due to pro-fascist changes in broadcast media
policy. Changes in policy which made one-sided conversations the norm.
Changes in Law which allow a handful of corporations to control those
one-sided conversations. Changes which have allowed a determined faction
to replace fact with fiction. Changes which came about with the stroke
of a pen in 1987 and again in 1998, and now, on the eve of the Trump/
Clinton election, we’re all just waking up to it.

“We don't condone violence,” Trump told Fox News’ about the incident, “but the kid did, from what I hear, stick up a certain finger right in everybody's face. And this man has had enough, because I'll tell you what, people in this country are very angry.” What about Chicago? Did his incendiary language cause the clashes at the U of Illinois? "I don't think so," Trump argued. "I represent a lot of people who have great anger.".
Anger? You bet there’s anger. But as revealed by Jen Senko’s new documentary “The Brainwashing of My Dad,” it is faux anger, caused by more than a generation of propaganda stemming from a coordinated far right takeover of media – and brains.
.

Those familiar with my workknow I’ve dealt with government policies which allow corporate media giants to take over our airwaves with lies painted as “news.” But in “Brainwashing,” Senko goes deeper into the historical underpinnings of far right media indoctrination and the virtual brainwashing of family members and society. Senko’s film shows over time how her open-minded Kennedy Democrat father transformed into a raging right-winger after excessive exposure to Talk Radio and Fox News. Says Senko, "What I mean by brainwashing is that people like my dad have become so taken over by right-wing media and its disinformation campaign, that they speak, vote and even act against their own interests - even against the very core of who they are.”

One of them could do us all a great favor by holding broadcasters accountable in a way that We the People cannot...

.

Republican Presidential contenders Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are at
war over what they charge to be false political ads against each other.
It's one battle in this bizarre and contentious campaign year which
could actually benefit us all.

.

The Cruz campaign has been running a series of attack ads about Trump's position on abortion, which Politifact reviewed
and described as "flawed." In response to what he calls Cruz' "lying
ads", Trump has threatened to file a suit charging that Cruz, who was
born in Canada, may not be eligible for the Presidency.
.
Meanwhile, a SuperPAC called the American Future Fund ran an attack ad against Cruz calling him "weak" on defense, which the group Fact Check reviewed and found to be "misleading." Cruz' response was to have his attorneys write a sternly worded letter to the TV stations running the ad against him, demanding they pull it, citing FCC public interest obligations and more.
.
"Because this advertisement makes a flatly false factual claim for
which your station is ultimately liable," the Cruz attorneys wrote, "we
strongly urge you to exercise your discretion as a licensee to refuse to
continue to broadcast this advertisement, and, because it is already
airing, immediately pull the advertisement from your rotation."
.
In this case, the Cruz attorneys are right, at least in regard to the legal issues at stake...
Why is Cruz going after the TV stations, but Trump is going after
Cruz personally? Trump can't sue Cruz over a "lying" campaign ad,
because there's no law against candidates lying on air. Therefore, he's
threatening litigation on the separate issue of Cruz' birthplace.
(Whether we like it or not, any Federal candidate who runs their own "I
approve this message" ad on TV or radio is free to lie to the public as
much as he or she likes. Broadcasters are legally not allowed to vet candidates' ads for fictitious statements, and stations are required to run those false ads over our public airwaves.)

.
Rush Limbaugh stepped into it this time.
.
The most popular radio
host in America is famous for spreading lies, propaganda, misogyny, and
hate over our publicly owned airwaves. But the Federal Communications
Commission, which oversees the public interest in broadcasting, has consistently stood by Limbaugh's First Amendment right to say whatever he wants, no matter how many people he harms or offends.
.
Until, perhaps, now.

CeaseSPIN.org News Quality Rating System

Top 40 Best Documentaries

About Me

Sue Wilson tells important stories which move politicians to act. She is the Emmy winning director of the media reform documentary "Broadcast Blues" and editor of SueWilsonReports.com.
Broadcast Blues sets its sights on media policy, and www.SueWilsonReports.com turns a critical eye on the media itself.
She recently formed an activist site, http://www.MediaActionCenter.net